<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (2) TMI 345 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31523</link>
    <description>Delayed payment of service tax was admitted and continued for about five to six months. As the applicable legal position had already been settled by a Larger Bench and the appellate authority had already reduced the penalty from the original amount, no further interference with the quantum of penalty was warranted. The appeal was therefore rejected and the reduced penalty under section 76 was sustained without further reduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 345 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31523</link>
      <description>Delayed payment of service tax was admitted and continued for about five to six months. As the applicable legal position had already been settled by a Larger Bench and the appellate authority had already reduced the penalty from the original amount, no further interference with the quantum of penalty was warranted. The appeal was therefore rejected and the reduced penalty under section 76 was sustained without further reduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>